adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

Timeline of Canada’s call to abandon 2015 appeal over residential schools fundraiser

Published

 on

OTTAWA — Canada’s decision to abandon its appeal of a 2015 court ruling that freed Catholic groups from the need to raise $25 million for residential school survivors has caused anger and confusion.

Last fall, a package of more than 200 pages of briefing notes and court records was prepared for Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller, who promised he would look into what transpired. The Canadian Press obtained the records under federal access-to-information laws.

Many of the documents, including a timeline of events, are redacted, either partially or fully. According to details available, here is a timeline of what happened:

May 2006: The historic Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement is approved by parties. The agreement involved the Canadian government, lawyers representing residential school survivors, churches that operated them and national Indigenous organizations.

300x250x1

September 2007: Implementation of the agreement begins. It includes direct payments to survivors and fulfilment of financial obligations to which parties, including Catholic entities, agreed. Catholic groups signed on to three financial commitments totalling $79 million. Included was a $25 million “best efforts” fundraising campaign to raise money for survivors.

October 2011: Federal officials say the Catholic entities tried to reduce part of their contributions to an Aboriginal Healing Foundation by claiming $2 million in administrative costs and legal fees.

December 2013: The federal government, led by former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, seeks direction from court.

September and October 2014: “Negotiations result in agreement to settle for $1.2 million,” the government-prepared chronology reads. It says a disagreement occurred over the scope of the release. “Canadian Catholic entities party to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement assert a full and final release of all financial obligations, including fundraising activities.” The entities say this agreement was reached orally and by email.

November 2014: Catholic entities go to court asking for a full release from all their financial obligations, arguing it was already agreed upon.

July 16, 2015: After a June hearing a Saskatchewan judge rules in favour of the Catholic entities, finding an agreement for a full release was indeed in place. However, according to officials, there was a lack of clarity around whether the court released the Catholic entities of all obligations, financial and non-financial.

August 2015: Canada files what’s known as a “protective notice of appeal” while it continues to negotiate with Catholic entities. The same month, Harper announces the start of a federal election.

“The appeal allowed time for Canada to attempt to negotiate the scope of the release in the hopes of protecting the $1.2 million settlement,” reads a government briefing note from November 2021.

September 2015: Government signs off on a recommendation for the Department of Justice to seek a court order and release agreement in exchange for $1.2 million. The 2015 document is signed by a minister, whose signature is illegible. Miller said it belonged to Bernard Valcourt, Harper’s former minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Officials say while the court ruling allows Catholic entities to walk away from the $25 million fundraising campaign — after only raising less than $4 million — “the likelihood of compelling the Catholic entities to meet their remaining fundraising obligations is very low.”

Oct. 19, 2015: Harper is defeated by Justin Trudeau, whose Liberal party wins a majority government in the federal election.

Oct. 30, 2015: The former deputy minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada signs a final release agreement, freeing the Catholic entities of their financial obligations.

Nov. 4, 2015: Members of Trudeau’s new cabinet are sworn in. Miller, who wasn’t named to cabinet at the time, said there is no evidence people in cabinet knew of the agreement.

Nov. 10, 2015: Ottawa withdraws its appeal notice.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 20, 2022.

 

Stephanie Taylor, The Canadian Press

News

Ontario Legislature keffiyeh ban remains, though Ford and opposition leaders ask for reversal – CBC.ca

Published

 on


Keffiyehs remain banned in the Ontario Legislature after a unanimous consent motion that would have allowed the scarf to be worn failed to pass at Queen’s Park Thursday.

That vote, brought forth by NDP Leader Marit Stiles, failed despite Premier Doug Ford and the leaders of the province’s opposition parties all stating they want to see the ban overturned. Complete agreement from all MPPs is required for a motion like this to pass, and there were a smattering of “nos” after it was read into the record.

In an email on Wednesday, Speaker Ted Arnott said the legislature has previously restricted the wearing of clothing that is intended to make an “overt political statement” because it upholds a “standard practice of decorum.”

300x250x1

“The Speaker cannot be aware of the meaning of every symbol or pattern but when items are drawn to my attention, there is a responsibility to respond. After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs at the present time in our Assembly is intended to be a political statement. So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions,” Arnott said in an email.

Speaking at Queen’s Park Thursday, Arnott said he would reconsider the ban with unanimous consent from MPPs.

“If the house believes that the wearing of the keffiyeh in this house, at the present time, is not a political statement, I would certainly and unequivocally accept the express will of the house with no ifs, ands or buts,” he said.

Keffiyehs are a commonly worn scarf among Arabs, but hold special significance to Palestinian people. They have been a frequent sight among pro-Palestinian protesters calling for an end to the violence in Gaza as the Israel-Hamas� war continues.

Premier calls for reversal

Ford said Thursday he’s hopeful Arnott will reverse the ban, but he didn’t say if he would instruct his caucus to support the NDP’s motion.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Ford said the decision was made by the speaker and nobody else.

“I do not support his decision as it needlessly divides the people of our province. I call on the speaker to reverse his decision immediately,” Ford said.

WATCH | Ford talks Keffiyeh ban: 

Ford says division over keffiyeh ‘not healthy’

12 hours ago

Duration 1:20

Ontario Premier Doug Ford reiterated Thursday that he does not support Speaker Ted Arnott banning keffiyehs in the Ontario Legislature because they are “intended to be a political statement,” as Arnott said in an email Wednesday.

PC Party MPP Robin Martin, who represents Eglinton–Lawrence, voted against the unanimous consent motion Thursday and told reporters she believes the speaker’s initial ruling was the correct one.

“We have to follow the rules of the legislature, otherwise we politicize the entire debate inside the legislature, and that’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is we come there and use our words to persuade, not items of clothing.”

When asked if she had defied a directive from the premier, Martin said, “It has nothing to do with the premier, it’s a decision of the speaker of the legislative assembly.”

Stiles told reporters Thursday she’s happy Ford is on her side on this issue, but added she is disappointed the motion didn’t pass.

“The premier needs to talk to his people and make sure they do the right thing,” she said.

Robin Martin answers questions from reporters.
PC Party MPP Robin Martin voted against a unanimous consent motion Thursday that would have overturned a ban on Keffiyehs at Queen’s Park. (Pelin Sidki/CBC)

Stiles first urged Arnott to reconsider the ban in an April 12 letter. She said concerns over the directive first surfaced after being flagged by members of her staff, however they have gained prominence after Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, posted about the issue on X, formerly Twitter.

Jama was removed from the NDP caucus for her social media comments on the Israel-Hamas war shortly after Oct. 7. 

Jama has said she believes she was kicked out of the party because she called for a ceasefire in Gaza “too early” and because she called Israel an “apartheid state.”

Arnott told reporters Thursday that he began examining a ban on the Keffiyeh after one MPP made a complaint about another MPP, who he believes was Jama, who was wearing one.

Liberals also call for reversal

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie also called for a reversal of the ban on Wednesday night.

“Here in Ontario, we are home to a diverse group of people from so many backgrounds. This is a time when leaders should be looking for ways to bring people together, not to further divide us. I urge Speaker Arnott to immediately reconsider this move to ban the keffiyeh,” Crombie said.

WATCH | An explainer on the cultural significance of keffiyehs:  

Keffiyeh: How it became a symbol of the Palestinian people

4 months ago

Duration 3:08

Keffiyehs are a common garment across the Arab world, but they hold a special meaning in the Palestinian resistance movement.

Stiles said MPPs have worn kilts, kirpans, vyshyvankas and chubas in the legislature, saying such items of clothing not only have national and cultural associations, but have also been considered at times as “political symbols in need of suppression.”

She said Indigenous and non-Indigenous members have also dressed in traditional regalia and these items cannot be separated from their historical and political significance. 

“The wearing of these important cultural and national clothing items in our Assembly is something we should be proud of. It is part of the story of who we are as a province,” she said.

“Palestinians are part of that story, and the keffiyeh is a traditional clothing item that is significant not only to them but to many members of Arab and Muslim communities. That includes members of my staff who have been asked to remove their keffiyehs in order to come to work. This is unacceptable.”

Stiles added that House of Commons and other provincial legislatures allow the wearing of keffiyehs in their chambers and the ban makes Ontario an “outlier.”

Suppression of cultural symbols part of genocide: MPP

Jama said on X that the ban is “unsurprising” but “nonetheless concerning” in a country that has a legacy of colonialism. “Part of committing genocide is the forceful suppression of cultural identity and cultural symbols,” she said in part. 

Sarah Jama
Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, is pictured here outside her office in the Ontario Legislature wearing a keffiyeh. (Sarah Jama/Twitter)

“Seeing those in power in this country at all levels of government, from federal all the way down to school boards, aid Israel’s colonial regime with these tactics in the oppression of Palestinian people proves that reconciliation is nothing but a word when spoken by state powers,” she said.

Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, said on X that it is “deeply ironic” on that keffiyehs were banned in the Ontario legislature on the 42nd anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“This is wrong and dangerous as we have already seen violence and exclusion impact Canadians, including Muslims of Palestinian descent, who choose to wear this traditional Palestinian clothing,” Elghawaby said.

Protesters who blocked a rail line in Toronto on Tuesday wear keffiyehs. The protest was organized by World Beyond War on April 16, 2024.
Protesters who blocked a rail line in Toronto on Tuesday are shown here wearing keffiyehs. The protest was organized by World Beyond War on April 16, 2024. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)

Arnott said the keffiyeh was not considered a “form of protest” in the legislature prior to statements and debates that happened in the House last fall.

“These items are not absolutes and are not judged in a vacuum,” he said.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Best in Canada: Jets Beat Canucks to Finish Season as Top Canadian Club – The Hockey News

Published

 on


[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Best in Canada: Jets Beat Canucks to Finish Season as Top Canadian Club  The Hockey News

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Health Canada sperm donation rules changing for gay men – CTV News

Published

 on


Health Canada will change its longstanding policy restricting gay and bisexual men from donating to sperm banks in Canada, CTV News has learned.

The federal health agency has adopted a revised directive removing the ban on gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, effective May 8.

The policy change would remove the current donor screening criteria, allowing men who have sex with men to legally donate sperm for the first time in more than 30 years, as part of the anonymous donation process.

300x250x1

This update comes after CTV News first reported last year that a gay man was taking the federal government to court, challenging the constitutionality of the policy on the basis that it violates the right to equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

According to an email Health Canada sent stakeholders informing them of the upcoming amendments to the federal directive, “sperm donors will instead be asked gender-neutral, sexual behaviour-based donor screening questions,” more in-line with the 2022 change made by Canadian Blood Services to its donation policy. 

However, instead of entirely eradicating restrictions for gay and bisexual men, lawyer Gregory Ko – whose client, Aziz M., brought the case – cautioned that Health Canada will continue to bar donations from those who have had new or multiple partners in the last three months, based on rules regarding anal sex. CTV News has agreed to protect the full identity of Aziz M. out of concerns for his privacy.

Ko said while the update is an important milestone, his client intends to maintain his challenge against the Health Canada directive, “and the continued discrimination contained in this latest revision.”

“Based on our understanding of the science, there is no scientific justification for screening criteria that continues to discriminate on the basis of sexual activity and sexual orientation, since the testing and quarantine protocols already in place allow sperm banks to detect relevant infections and exclude such donations,” Ko said.

Currently, a Health Canada directive prohibits gay and bisexual men from donating sperm to a sperm bank for general use, unless they’ve been abstinent for three months or are donating to someone they know.

For example, it stops any gay man who is sexually active from donating, even if they are in a long-term monogamous relationship.

Under the “Safety of Sperm and Ova Regulation,” sperm banks operating in Canada must deem these prospective donors “unsuitable,” despite all donations being subject to screening, testing and a six-month quarantine before they can be used.

While the directive does not mention transgender or non-binary donors, the policy also applies to individuals who may not identify as male but would be categorized as men under the directive.

It’s a blanket policy that the Toronto man bringing the lawsuit said made him feel like a “second-class citizen,” and goes to the heart of the many barriers that exist for LGBTQ2S+ Canadians looking to have children.

When CTV News first reported on the lawsuit, Health Canada and various federal ministers said they would be “exploring” a policy change, citing the progress made on blood donation rules.

The update comes following “the consultations held in August 2023 and January 2024,” according to Health Canada.

This is a breaking news story, more to come… 

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending